Seriously thoughtful Cold Fusion - To Be Or Not To Be

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

"Cold Fusion" is usually used to describe the mostly-discredited process in which Drs. Pons and Fleishman put a palladium electrode in a ??water?? ??heavy-water?? (I forget which) bath and thought that they got out more energy than they put in -- and also more energy than could be explained by simple chemical reactions.

That is indeed what they claimed, but the crucial flaw in their experiment is that they did not attempt to look for neutrons being emitted from their experiment - neutrons are the "smoking gun" for fusion reactions. Nobody really understands why they seeing the effects that they were (and nobody really doubts that the temperature rises were real - these were reputable scientists) - but whatever the cause, it wasn't fusion.

[Xenophon]

But if

1. Nobody doubts the temperature rises were real, and
2. they were getting out more energy than they put in...

who cares why it works! Start extracting power NOW!!!

Yes, yes, I do understand that we don't want to deploy a high-energy something that is poorly understood -- too many risks of problems. So if the two items above are correct, why aren't we going berserk trying to understand it well enough to use the effect?

My understanding had been that (beyond the missing neutrons), there were serious questions about item #2 on my list. Do any of you know differently?

Xenophon

[tirsales]

Seriously: Why is there (overall) so little fusion research at all? (I'm not necessarily talking about cold fusion here).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

But if

1. Nobody doubts the temperature rises were real, and
2. they were getting out more energy than they put in...

who cares why it works! Start extracting power NOW!!!

My understanding had been that (beyond the missing neutrons), there were serious questions about item #2 on my list. Do any of you know differently?

From what I recall, they (and other scientists) have not been able to duplicate the net-positive power output claims from the original experiment. Until they figure that out, they have no place to go with it.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Seriously: Why is there (overall) so little fusion research at all? (I'm not necessarily talking about cold fusion here).

"Conventional" fusion research and equipment is pricey... accelerators can span miles... only major governments can afford the cost. The "cold" fusion research is so controversial and unproven that I think few reputable scientists want to risk their rep by getting near it.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

"Conventional" fusion research and equipment is pricey... accelerators can span miles... only major governments can afford the cost. The "cold" fusion research is so controversial and unproven that I think few reputable scientists want to risk their rep by getting near it.

I know (see e.g. ITER)
Fusion research is expensive - this is no reason not to fund it.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

[On "cold fusion"]From what I recall, they (and other scientists) have not been able to duplicate the net-positive power output claims from the original experiment. Until they figure that out, they have no place to go with it.

That matches my recollection also. I was curious because Harry's statement didn't seem to match that. Which might mean I didn't read/understand correctly, or the he knows something I don't, or... So I asked.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

"Conventional" fusion research and equipment is pricey... accelerators can span miles... only major governments can afford the cost. The "cold" fusion research is so controversial and unproven that I think few reputable scientists want to risk their rep by getting near it.

This is one of the attractions of Bussard's Boron fusion approach. IF it works (a big if, that isn't yet demonstrated one way or the other), it's small-scale and relatively inexpensive to test. See that "Should Google go Nuclear" talk for more information. It looks like they'd need about $20 Million to produce a test article suitable to either prove feasibility or to demonstrate that the approach doesn't work (along with learning why it doesn't work).

And unlike Pons & Fleishman, Bussard went the normal peer-reviewed publication and research route, thus avoiding the "too controversial to go near" problem.

All of which then begs the question: "Why no closer investigation of Bussard's approach?" I have no clue what the answer might be. Do any of the hordes out there in cyberspace know? If so, please tell!

Xenophon

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

That matches my recollection also. I was curious because Harry's statement didn't seem to match that. Which might mean I didn't read/understand correctly, or the he knows something I don't, or... So I asked.

Sorry, I think you may have misunderstood me. I simply meant that Pons and Fleishman were "reputable" scientists, and that nobody (AFAIK) is suggesting that they "faked" their results. There may indeed have been some flaw in their apparatus or measuring equipment which resulted in a spurious indication of a temperature rise; but they were not falsifying their data. I am very aware that nobody has been able to successfully reproduce those results subsequently.

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

From what I recall, they (and other scientists) have not been able to duplicate the net-positive power output claims from the original experiment. Until they figure that out, they have no place to go with it.

"Conventional" fusion research and equipment is pricey... accelerators can span miles... only major governments can afford the cost. The "cold" fusion research is so controversial and unproven that I think few reputable scientists want to risk their rep by getting near it.

I remember reading, probably in a New Scientist mag', an article on the "chilling effect" of the Pons and Fleischmann story [sorry, link is a subscriber link with a short intro]. If I recall correctly, it talked about a potential thawing of that effect, and that the US Navy(?) was beginning to assign resources and study it(?) (Question marks are because my memory is faulty. I'm pretty sure it was the US Navy that had some involvement). Anyway, by coincidence, not long ago New Scientist online referred to some further studies related to it and "Neutron tracks":

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-the-cold.html

Not that this means anything, other than that perhaps more study is beginning again by "reputable scientists", with distance from the "controversy" becoming achieved.

(I really should start reading the New Scientist magazine again. The non-subscriber online experience is so unsatisfactory).

Cheers,
Marc

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tirsales

I know (see e.g. ITER)
Fusion research is expensive - this is no reason not to fund it.

Right, especially now. However, it is true that countries that originally committed to providing shared funding for massive facilities, like the Tokamak facility built in France, have pulled their funding promises due to the realities of their economy. Similar rescinded funding promises essentially shelved a similar facility in the U.S., which local scientists hoped would outdo the French facility in size and output.

This isn't the only area where the current global economy has slowed needed spending on efficiency programs, renewable energy and clean/green initiatives.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Right, especially now. However, it is true that countries that originally committed to providing shared funding for massive facilities, like the Tokamak facility built in France, have pulled their funding promises due to the realities of their economy.

To the best of my knowledge, it is only the USA which has currently withdrawn its promised funding for the ITER project. All the other funding is going ahead.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

Not that this means anything, other than that perhaps more study is beginning again by "reputable scientists", with distance from the "controversy" becoming achieved.

When considering the military, always keep in mind that higher-ups will authorize projects and order their people to work on them, being unconcerned with the "reputation" of those being ordered to work. And I'd guess a lot of that work would be passed on to contractors that are more interested in the money than the reputation (and often do not even care if they are actively wasting time on frivolous projects, as long as they are getting paid).

In either case, if they fail, they can always blame the top brass for ordering them on a wild goose chase...

I wish this indicated there was a good chance to get something out of this research, but I admit I'm not optimistic.

Besides... if the military cracks it, they probably wouldn't tell the rest of us for decades...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

To the best of my knowledge, it is only the USA which has currently withdrawn its promised funding for the ITER project. All the other funding is going ahead.

You may be right, it's been a while (sometime last year) since I heard details on that. I do believe the U.S. wanted to spend more money on its own facility, then construction of the U.S. facility fell through, or was delayed, anyway. I thought some other countries were also having co-funding issues (just as they have had with the ISS, for instance), but I may just be remembering the details incorrectly.

[Daithi]

I was a computer programmer in the Army when Pons & Fleishman first announced that they had achieved cold fusion. At the time I was working with a Captain who had just graduated from Rice University, and I can remember him talking to some of his friends that were still in the Physics deptment at Rice, and they were pretty emphatic that they had duplicated Pons & Fleishman experiment. Had they too just made an error? Or did they also achieve "cold fusion" or some other type of "excess energy"? I don't have a clue, but it must be cool to work in a field that tries to unravel the secrets of the universe.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Daithi

I was a computer programmer in the Army when Pons & Fleishman first announced that they had achieved cold fusion. At the time I was working with a Captain who had just graduated from Rice University, and I can remember him talking to some of his friends that were still in the Physics deptment at Rice, and they were pretty emphatic that they had duplicated Pons & Fleishman experiment. Had they too just made an error? Or did they also achieve "cold fusion" or some other type of "excess energy"? I don't have a clue, but it must be cool to work in a field that tries to unravel the secrets of the universe.

I also remember reports of workers duplicating those results, but as the controversy swung to “that’s impossible” those reports seemed to disappear.

Academic cowardice perhaps?

[Polyglot27]

Just as an aside, I remember that when the cold fusion story broke, other scientists were talking about high temperature super-conductors. ("High temperature" here means just a few degrees above absolute zero). I wonder what happened to that line of research.